KALI CHARAN AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

KALI CHARAN AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

The acquisition of lands was part of an integrated development plan for the Yamuna Expressway; the State lawfully invoked Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to dispense with the Section 5-A inquiry; the Division Bench decision in Kamal Sharma (relying on Nand Kishore) correctly stated the law and the contrary decision in Shyoraj Singh (relying on Radhy Shyam) is per incuriam and set aside; the High Court's grant of 64.7% additional compensation is to apply in rem to all affected landowners.

Parties
Appellants (landowners): Kali Charan and Others; Respondent: State of U.P.; Respondent No.3: Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (special Leave Petitions) / Judgment on Appeals From Allahabad High Court
Outcome
Appeals filed by the landowners are dismissed; appeals filed by YEIDA are allowed.
Legal Topics
Urgency Clause, Section 17(1), Section 17(4), Section 5 a, Integrated Development Plan, Compensation Enhancement
Land Acquisition Administrative Law Urgency Clause Section 17(1) Section 17(4) Section 5 a Integrated Development Plan Compensation Enhancement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kali Charan and Others

Appellants (landowners)

State of U.P.

Respondent

Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA)

Respondent No.3

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (special Leave Petitions) / Judgment on Appeals From Allahabad High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the acquisition is part of the integrated development plan of the Yamuna Expressway undertaken by YEIDA
  2. 2 Whether the invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and dispensation of inquiry under Section 5-A was legal and justified
  3. 3 Whether the view in Kamal Sharma relying on Nand Kishore or the view in Shyoraj Singh applying Radhy Shyam lays down the correct proposition of law

Ratio Decidendi

The acquisition of lands was part of an integrated development plan for the Yamuna Expressway; the State lawfully invoked Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to dispense with the Section 5-A inquiry; the Division Bench decision in Kamal Sharma (relying on Nand Kishore) correctly stated the law and the contrary decision in Shyoraj Singh (relying on Radhy Shyam) is per incuriam and set aside; the High Court's grant of 64.7% additional compensation is to apply in rem to all affected landowners.

Court Disposition

Appeals filed by the landowners are dismissed; appeals filed by YEIDA are allowed.

Orders

  • Appeals filed by the landowners are dismissed.
  • Appeals filed by YEIDA are allowed.